DailyDirt: The Progress Of Treating HIV

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The US Center for Disease Control reported on its first case of AIDS (though it wasn't called AIDS at the time) in 1981. Some HIV-positive patients have since gained access to anti-viral drugs that hold off the fatal complications for many more years than it was previously thought possible. There are over 34 million people in the world who are HIV-positive, and there are some optimistic reports that the treatments are becoming more effective. Here are just a few fascinating stories on the development of HIV treatments. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 5:02pm

    hmm

    what is the difference between an anti-viral drug and an anti-retroviral drug?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 5:18pm

    Re: hmm

    A retrovirus is a type of virus. So an anti-retroviral attacks retroviruses spefically, while an anti-viral attacks viruses generally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 6th, 2013 @ 5:46pm

    ??!

    Wait, isn't there a ton of speculation that AIDS is similar to the bubonic plague?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 6:22pm

    There was a time when there was no AIDS. Then all of a sudden it just appeared. Where did it come from? That's one reason I think it's manmade.
    Also, when it appeared on the scene it wasn't called HIV. It was called HTLV III.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    demonsun, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 6:32pm

    Re: ??!

    Not if you understand Biology, bubonic plague is caused by Yersinia bacteria, not a virus.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 6:35pm

    There is only one problem and that is cures = far less money than a drug that allows you to live a functional life as long as you're taking it.

    It's a fucked up way of thinking :( but it's how the big pharma companies think.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 6:36pm

    I weep for the world when the cure for cancer is found and the copyright maximalist are the first in the bandwagon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:22pm

    Mutation

    That mutation only makes them immune to one of the major strains of HIV!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
     
    icon
    letherial (profile), Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:31pm

    i Swore i watched a show where all you needed to do is inject liquified money into your veins, in fact im so positive im HIV positive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 7:40pm

    Re:

    I agree, progress in this arena is very slow for a bunch of sinister reasons. Not sure if this is the only reason, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were part of the reason. A lot of it probably involves a lot of bureaucracy and overzealous regulations and restrictions and red tape.

    Here are some more links I just found on Google.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2129200/Could-cure-AIDS-horizon-Genetica lly-engineered-human-stem-cells-hunt-kill-HIV-inside-body.html

    http://www.nature.com/news/gene-th erapy-can-protect-against-hiv-1.9516

    I remember they started a study a longer time ago at the University of Pennsylvania where they took out people's antibodies, altered them to take out the genes that code for the antigen that the Aid's virus attaches to, and reinserted them. This was based on the fact that, for quite a long time now, it has been known that some people can't get HIV/AID's (or at least the majority of the variants) because they don't have the gene that codes for this antigen. The idea would be that these invulnerable antibodies would multiply once inserted into the body effectively restoring (or at least partially restoring) the person's immunity. I can no longer find anything about this and the last I read on a Google search is that the FDA shut down the universities' gene therapy research facility due to violations or something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 7th, 2013 @ 2:45am

    Re: Mutation

    that's still an improvement on nothing at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
A word from our Sponsors...
Sponsored Resource
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat

A word from our Sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This